 Good morning. Good morning. I've got something for you. Don't you all sit down? Shall I sit down? Yeah. I want to read Jack to help me find. I need to know how to do that. Jack! Ah ha ha. Ah ha ha. Is that for me? For me? Whoa. I hope. I hope. Oh, God. Well, that's very gracious of you, Mr. President. Who starts this? I think you do. Well, it's a loss for words. Well, it's certainly great to have you here, Mr. President. And my breakfast. I like this idea of you being my guest at your place. And whenever we can do that, I think it's fine. Well, to the business at hand, I guess, I do want to say this, I am particularly grateful this morning for the large entourage of monitor editors that are here from Boston. We have Kay Fanning, our editor, and our editor-in-chief, Earl Fell, and our manager, Jack Hoagland, and our managing editor, David Annable. And out there somewhere, Brad Nicobocker, our national editor. And the ground rules today, well, by the way, you see McNeil and Lara shooting here. And they're just going to be doing the preliminaries. The substance will be all yours. And the transcript will be yours. Sometimes it's half the noon. The show hits the downing of McNeil and Lara show. I understand it will be tonight, unless we get shoved off by some really important news. I believe that covers about everything. Oh, yes, we're going to be embargoed, too, as usual, this particular breakfast. The morning papers tomorrow are the first ones that can use it, not to be used before that time. And the first question, if I may, Mr. President? I've been wondering for a while here, and I feel there's a good chance to ask the question, what were the factors that were involved? And they're moving away from support for Marcos and getting behind Mr. Zaquino, particularly after it appeared to some of us that you were hanging, you know, sticking very close to Marcos at that last press conference. No, the thing was we've had an historic relationship with the Philippines, with their government, and their people for a great many years. Our whole point from the very beginning was that this was a decision that would have to be made by the Filipino people, and that we were not going to interject ourselves in anything other than any way that we might be helpful in arriving at a severe, arriving at a solution without violence and bloodshed. And that was our whole purpose all the way. And finally it became evident that which way the people were deciding, and we've had this change without bloodshed and violence. This certainly wasn't that evident to you at that point at the last press conference. All right, Bob Thompson. Mr. President, now that Mrs. Zaquino has released several prisoners, and the economy is very bad today, what are your chief concerns to the Philippines for the future? And also, has she taught me advice about it? No, although we've had people there meeting with her. So Habib is going back and so forth, meeting with that government. We want them to know that we're ready to cooperate in any way that we can be helpful in this establishment of a democratic procedure. And no, she has never asked for our counsel unless she has done so in talking to the people that we have there. And if so, that'll be forward to me then. Do you plan to see her when you go to the party? Do you plan to see her when you go to the party? I don't think there are any plans for us to do anything except go directly there. Before we go with any more questions, could I just say a couple of words here? And you all go ahead and meet. I've had my breakfast. I want to thank you, my man Godfrey. I've always wanted to say that. You heard of that movie, right? I want the movie, My Man Godfrey. Yes, there was. I want to congratulate Budge. 20 years of spurling breakfast. And I understand that's almost 2,000 of those breakfasts. And at this town at least, you have really helped establish the fact that mom was right. The first meal of the day is the most important. And Budge, I want to congratulate you also on beginning your fifth decade with Monitor. They told me that Horace Greeley was your copy boy. Now, I knew him well, and I just don't think he would take such a humble job. At my age, Mr. President, you're my hero. Well, now we can get back to the questions here. We're a little bit dangerous. I can't get to everyone, but I have seen Leo here and I've seen George and Pat. And I'll try to get around with any patience. Jack's back there. Mr. President, do you agree with what Pat Buchanan wrote in the Washington Post this morning, and that is that the Democratic Party is the co-guarantor of the graduate doctrine in Central America? Pat can speak for himself, but I am going to say that I feel that the opposition to what we're trying to do in Nicaragua fails to recognize that we're faced with a situation something like the one I just answered about in the Philippines. There is an effort down there, but this has already had turned to violence, but an effort to bring about a democratic solution to the problem, to reestablish a government that will be a government chosen by the people. That was with the goals of the revolution against the Mosul. And the only ones who violated those goals are those we now call the Sandinistas, who ousted their fellow revolutionaries and took over by force the government of that country. The Contras, our best estimate is about 40% of the Contras are former Sandinistas. All right, Leo, and a couple more here, and then I'm going to go to some other tables. Just be patient. There's an awful lot of people here. Go ahead. The expense of living by migrants is tremendous. And not the money from the government is what is going to be practically out of the country with what is actually going to be for even less. What is the United States government aware of the expense of what he was doing? And if so, did we ever try to counsel him to moderate disputes? No, I don't think that we ever got into anything of that kind. And now, with these charges being made, as I said the other day, now there are three sets of laws that might be involved, our own international law and the Filipino law. And if allegations of this kind or charges are made, then it's up to the legal procedures in whichever law body is involved to resolve this. Would you like a personal knowledge? All right, George, then Pan, then let me go over Bob Pitchenberg. Mr. President, South Africa is moving for the rest of the seven-month-old state of emergency. Given the fact that they are indicating plans to also replace this with laws that were given just as much power, is this really an advance that all of these legislations are mentioned? Yes, I think to lift this would be another step. They have made some steps, some more successful than others. And I think there is definitely a faction in South Africa that wants a solution to this problem. Are you going to say these questions with laws have been just as much power? Then I wouldn't think that that would be a very progressive step. No, if they did that. Hi, Pat. Mr. President, regarding the Philippines and the communist threat there, apparently the hard core of the communist guerrilla movement has determined to fight on despite the change of government. Are you prepared to offer more military aid to the new Philippine government if it's asked despite the budget pressures here? And would you relate the communist threat there to the one in Nicaragua and differentiate between them if you see a difference? Well, there is this difference. There was a democratic solution reached without violence, reflecting what seemed to be the will of the Filipino people. Of the Filipino people. But in Nicaragua, the communist takeover has already happened. And we have a totalitarian communist government in power. In the Philippines, we've just had an evidence the other day with that terrorist attack on the bus and the killing of, what was it, 19 people at the last convoy heard. I think that the communists in the Philippines have had a setback. They profit when you can have a breakdown of law and order and a conflict between, say, two other factions, neither one of which is communist, and they can step in and in the middle and keep it going. It reminds me back in those days when I was a governor and the campuses were rioting so. And we definitely had an intelligence report that established that there, and the student riots, our own domestic communists, were not on one side or the other. They were on both sides. And their goal was to simply keep stirring the pot and keep the violence going, because that's where they then can find a fertile field. Part of the military aid to the Philippines, are you prepared to offer them more than what has been forthcoming already to fight this threat? I'm sorry. I didn't overlook that, part of your question. I think with the relationship that we've always had, and this would have to be as a request from them, that we would help within the budget constraints that we have in any way that we could to maintain democracy in the Philippines, it would help them maintain it. Mr. President, while you're placing a high priority on an increased military aid to the Contras, indications so far are that the American public isn't very much concerned about the issue, and there seems to be little support for it among our allies, and even, apparently, among the Contadora nations that would have, presumably, the most to lose from a Marxist threat in Latin America. My question is, why do you think this is so? We do think we have the support of neighboring countries there in Latin America. As a matter of fact, in my trip to Grenada, nine heads of state of the nine Caribbean island nations, they brought up the subject, and all of them in total agreement leaned on me and said, please don't stop what you're doing down there, because Nicaragua, under the Sandinista government, represents the greatest threat to our democracies that we have ever experienced. So I know where they stand. With regard to the American people, that's one of the reasons why I think we need to do a little talking there. First of all, you have to start with the fact that most Americans, with our own problems and during recessions over the past years and so forth, it's very easy to say, and there is some merit in saying, what are we doing helping others far away when we have our problems at home? That's part of it. Second part of it is just lack of general knowledge about here is a country called Nicaragua. Most of us have to look at the map and even now to establish where it is. And they need to hear the facts of this situation. And so I'm going by what Jefferson said. He said, if the people know all the facts, the people will never make a mistake. But they just don't know all the facts. And I'm going to try to see that they do. I'm going to Cheryl. I'm going to Elizabeth. I'm going to the gentleman. We'll move around. Yes, we can. Mr. President, do you think it's a proper role for the federal government to test federal employees for drug use? And how do you expect that to affect employee morale in Washington? Well, no decision has been made with regard to this suggestion for everybody. But I would like to point out that the military is now doing this. It's also being done among our people who work in the towers at the airports and where there is a safety factor involved and where you've certainly got some justification to make sure that everyone there is able and capable at any time of doing the job for the safety of others. No decision has been made generally, although we do feel that any place where there is a safety element involved. We not only are entitled to ask for such a thing, I think that we have a responsibility to do that. I have the same feelings that many people do about how far do you go in invading the privacy of individuals. On the other hand, I can't help but think that if all of our people in government would take the lead in volunteering such a thing, it might have a salubrious effect on being an inspiration to the rest of society. Elizabeth Drew back there. Back to the Philippines. Do you think there could come a point if Marcos is stripped of too much of his wealth and nearly all of it? This could raise a problem in terms of trying to induce other leaders to give up, to come here or to leave their governance, as we did in this case, and might have seen a violation to your promise to him that he would be welcome here. Do you think it could go too far? Well, I think this, that if there's an undo harassment of any individual in this situation, yes, that can have an effect on what you might be able to do in the future with others. On the other hand, if there has been absolute wrongdoing, then there must be restitution. But the information that I have always had was that while his salary was extremely modest as the president of his country, and obviously could not have ever made him wealthy, the information I've always had was that he was a millionaire before he took office, and so that there probably is some wealth that is his legitimately by way of investments over all these 20 years. And that, again, then I'll leave to the courts. That's up for the courts to determine whether the allegations are sound or not. Mr. President, Mr. President, can I go back to the Nicaragua again? Do you equate opposition to your request for military aid for the Contras with support for the San Anista regime? Do I equate my request for aid to the Contras with regard to our support for the El Salvador regime, did you say? No, no, do you equate opposition to your request with support for the San Anistas? Oh, well, it's hard not to. That government is there. It's established in power. And many of the arguments that are used against us have been what I consider fallacious arguments, such as that we're attempting to overthrow a legitimate government. What is legitimate about a government that took office at the point of a gun that even eliminated or exiled or drove out of the capital, the fellow revolutionaries that wanted other goals in that revolution? This has to be whether intended or not support for that particular government. And let me just state that with the three leaders who were here the other day, they reiterated what has always been said to us by the Contras, that they want a political solution, that they are not striving to overthrow. They're striving to get back to negotiating out the goals of the revolution that they laid down to the Organization of American States when they asked for their help. Now you're next, and then Carl, and then Henry, and then over to Phil, and I'll be back again. President, a lot of states have had success with the idea of tax amnesty. Forgiving them fines if they'll pay their taxes back interested if they'll pay up the O. What do you see this as a possible federal solution, one time solution? What kind of philosophy do you think? How do you see it? I can tell you is we're looking at this and studying it very closely. I had heard from a couple of governors where they've tried this some time ago, and I brought this problem here. Those who are studying say that there are certain hazards that must be looked at as to, in regard to whether you suddenly create a kind of a tax-free period for individuals who can then count on a future amnesty and in the meantime have had the use of the money. But all of those things are being looked at. And if it proves out that things of this kind can be guarded against practically, it sounds like a way to maybe end a situation in which we are losing billions and billions of dollars a year from people who are not paying their just share. Hi, Carl. I'm going to ask for the grenades. But at the same time, you seem to see that there would not be going to be a sprux in the garage. My question is, if the threat to our national security is as great as you have described it on the paper, and you can't succeed in overthrowing that government or the laundry, why would you not seek to move the US forces to get rid of what you obviously think is a very severe threat to this country? For one thing, the image of the great colossus of the North still lives in Latin America. None of our friends down there and none of those allies who were heart and soul in favor of us doing what we're doing now and what we're asking to do, none of them want us to send troops in there. And we don't want to do that. We don't think it's necessary. I don't go around shouting that because, frankly, while we have no intention of doing any such thing, it doesn't bother me at all if the Sandinistas go to bed every night wondering what they're going to. And not the people in Congress who are undecided on how to go on this vote. Might they not regard the statements about the threats and national security as just rhetoric and feeling that, well, it isn't really that serious because it's more that serious than before? No, I don't think so. Our whole relationship here in this Western hemisphere with all of our neighbors, we have never achieved the relationship and neighborliness that could exist and should exist. We've done better here in the Northern continent with the three powers here. But we have an obligation to think in terms of the relationship with all of them. And I don't think there's any profit in our going back to that big colossus image. As a matter of fact, when I made my trip early on in my administration down to Latin America, I went there not with a plan, but asking them for their ideas. Because we've had, with the best of intentions, presidents in the past who've gone down and said, here is a plan, a good neighbor plan, a this plan, a that. And always it was the big colossus offering the plan. And I said to them, I'd rather have a talk with you, find out from all of you how we can have this kind of good neighbor relationship. Henry, I'm filming. Mr. President, they need some peace because there's food to reach, a same age. And I wonder whether you may agree with his assessment and do if you do, whether you're planning any new initiatives. With this initiative that we always had, it was us to try and be helpful as we can in establishing a peace process there, still stands that the roadblock this time was the one individual who's been a stumbling block all the way, and that is Arafat and the PLO. And with the murder of that mayor, you have to see that now the difficulty, first of all, the peace process must involve the problems of the Palestinian people. But how can now in the face of this total refusal by Arafat, how can you involve the Palestinians in negotiations when they understand the threat to themselves of any individual who allows himself to be advanced as a representative of the people? Bill? So you're not planning any initiatives, I'm sorry. We're, they all know, both on the Israeli side and King Hussein and all of them, that we still are desirous of establishing peace and we'll do everything we can to help. But again, we can't just walk in and dip tape. Some of the criticism of your policy in Nicaragua has not to do so much with the way you characterize that regime or the potential danger, but what the real purpose of the aid to the contras is and some people have said that it's to overthrow the government and I think you said that that's not the case. On the other hand, you did say a moment ago that Nicaragua, the communist takeover, has already happened and we have a totalitarian regime in power. Is there any instance that you can think of where a totalitarian regime in power has called for elections? Not honest elections. This election that they did hold that one election was completely phony. They would not allow the other side to campaign. They would not allow them to have it. What can we hope for? The very thing that the contras have said is their goal and this is the thing, if you don't have the pressure, the threat to the Sandinistas, threat against their regime, there is nothing to make them then enter into negotiations and this has been the goal of the contras from the beginning. If you remember quite some time ago, they offered and we carried that offer to all the contador nations and to the others. They offered to lay down their arms that they want to come in, meet with their one-time fellow revolutionaries and then try to establish a government that will be based on the principles that they had said were guiding their revolution to begin with. What is the follow-up? They have denied that they want to overthrow that government. What is there to negotiate other than the loss of their own power? Well, yes, except if they would, as in our own country and in other democracies, they would be just as free to submit themselves to the voters for the approval and support of the people and if they could win that support, they'd continue to be the government. I don't know how my memory is, but I'm trying to really call on people the way I've seen hands and I'm sure I'm mixed up by now, but I'm trying to also go to the various tables. It's a hard problem, Mr. President. I know, I'm glad you're doing it. Oh, yeah, you don't know the burden I am. Anyway, Bill, you're next and then I did see Jack Cole very early and more, I just know you're ready. Mr. President, you're quoting Thomas Jefferson, reminded me that he also said something to the effect that if error of opinion is to be tolerated, a reason should be left free to contradict it and this should be a monument of our republic. And my question is, isn't it beneath our dignity as a government to get worried about a communist drum beater being on the airways for a few minutes? We've got the most infectious system, haven't we? They should be worried about us. And doesn't that make us more like the communists and like the authoritarian governments? I'm speaking of Victor Posner, of course. Yes, I was sure that's who you had in mind. I'm glad I didn't mess with you. No, I think the difference in the situation was that here and with because of our innate fairness in democracies and which if a president is going to speak, the other party is going to be permitted to respond and we have done that. I've also sometimes thought that the president ought to maybe have two minutes of rebuttal after the other fellows responded. But it was the situation and I must say, everyone at ABC has been not only apologetic but have themselves said this was the wrong situation to apparently be giving the Soviet Union equal time or space to respond here in our own country on a speech on our affairs. This does not mean that they should not have him on the air at any time they want and that they think he can and they've done this. He's been on the air and I've just seen him recently as yesterday on another program and that's fine. I think it was the juxtaposition of apparently he was now going to be allowed to have the last word and responding and rebutting not only my speech but that of the Democratic Party, their response. And they, as I say, talk to Rune Arledge and he has talked to me about it and he regrets very much the whole thing and says that all of their people feel that, yes, this was the wrong way to do it. They could have had him on the next day just as well and given him a half an hour. Okay, Jack. Mr. President, Congressman Forbee, the chairman of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee warned yesterday that if you don't come to some budget-compromising Congress with your $15 billion foreign aid request, could be cut by as much as half in the House. How do you expect to salvage your foreign aid request but at a time when you had several major domestic cuts and programs before that? We have submitted a budget that meets the Graham-Rudman Hollings terms with regard to reducing the deficit. I think we've been very modest in our projections and the budgeting process of all the Congress has to do is take a look at that budget and you know this whole budgeting process is pretty ridiculous and you stop to think about it. We don't just come up with a set of numbers of what we'd like to see. We sit for days and weeks and hours in those days, yeah, every day around the cabinet table. The people there are the people who have to administer the programs that have been handed to them by the Congress of the United States. There isn't anything the administration does. We don't spend a dime. We can't. We take the programs that have been passed by legislation that are authorized. Now the people that are going to run them are the best of their ability. Come up with a figure that they think they can administer those programs the way they're supposed to be done. Then they go back up to the Hill and they're the people who have nothing to do with the running or management of those programs. They just make a decision, no sir, you've got to take $10 billion more in this program or that. I remember a few years ago, happened earlier than when I was here and I can't remember the exact dates, but I was, I'd taken a two year period in one government program, the job training program. And in that two year period, that program had spent $252 billion, or no, pardon me, $252 million. And it prorated out to more than $50,000 for every one of the people who are now with us who served with other administrations who told me that when they headed up, such jobs in the government came to the end of the year and had not spent all the money. They were ordered by the Congress to go out and spend that money. Would there be, let me just ask, would there be severe consequences if there were sharp reduction in your foreign aid request? We think that we've boiled that down pretty far. And we think that that, and when you talk foreign aid, there's two areas. There's the economic situation with other countries that we're trying to help. All the world has announced its intention to try to help. And there is the security assistance. Security assistance in spots of the world that if the, our potential adversaries would like to move in and have their way, the cost to us then, just for deterrent and defense against this occupation of those other, of those regions would be far greater than it is now to help them have the security to protect themselves. The sequence, more back to Mary McGrory, then to Susan, and then I'll try to get, you know, around this place. Mr. President, in the Philippines, when there was a big scandal and elections, the people by the hundreds of thousands growing up and threw out the dictator and they had the military and the church along with them. In Nicaragua, the Contras now have a force of only about 6,000 people. They have failed to capture any town. There is no evidence of rioting in the streets against the Sandinistas. As bad as however bad the Sandinistas are, doesn't this suggest that the Contras have failed to develop the kind of popular support for their, supposedly, democratic revolutions that the Aquino side did in the Philippines? I don't believe that because right now, the people under a totalitarian regime have seen what can happen to anyone who disagrees with that regime. I met here personally a year or so ago, the young minister, who was ordered not to preach just to do a sermon in his church, but he did it. And he will bear the scars for the rest of his life, of what happened because that night, they simply burst into his house, dragged him out and treated him so badly. But the Contras are not just 4,000. There are upwards of 20 to 25,000. And the only thing this is why we're asking for what we're asking for. They are unarmed Contras at the moment. But the fact that a great many of the people now with the Contras are deserters from the Sandinista military. The very fact that there has been an underground movement of families smuggling their sons out of the country to keep them from being drafted into that military indicates that there is not public support. And as for the church, they banned the publishing of the Catholic newspaper down there. They have now stopped the broadcasting of religious services by the church. We saw their treatment of the Pope and the treatment of Bishop Brando, Bravo is something that indicates which side the church is on. And it was the church that offered when the Contras said they wanted to lay down their arms and come in and negotiate out a way to establish a government, the church offered to be the mediator and to make sure that everybody played fair. This sequence now, Susan, Mary McGrory, David Broder, Bob Novak. This question, you said earlier that it's hard not to see how people who are opposed to your age and Contras are, it's hard to see how they are not supported to support the government. Do you think that the opponents of your age and Contras are in fact being used perhaps unwittingly by the Sandinista government? The age to... The opponents of your age and Contras do you think they need to be used to act unwittingly by the Sandinista government? Oh yes, I think, we know that they have launched a disinformation campaign. We know that they have a lobbying force right here in our own country that is working the same way any other lobbyist work to try and keep this going. Now this is not accusing the opponents of being knowing age to the Sandinistas at all. It's the same old problem we've had with down over the years with communist fronts and unwitting people that don't know. I can speak from experience on that because at one time in my life I was on the board of directors of two outfits that turned out to be communist fronts in Hollywood. If I could just follow up, do you think that that might include some of these church groups that have been acted in supporting the Sandinista government and who have come out with human rights reports and that sort of thing? I have to say that they are misguided and this won't be the first time, as a matter of fact, the other day. The great many of those people that were around the cabinet table when the three UNO leaders were here and I want to enjoy them were leaders of various religious groups and the very next day comes out the statement that there is another combination of religious groups that are opposed to our aid. These people around the cabinet table have been raising funds privately to help the Contras. So there is a great division there. There is even a division within the churches, the denominations. I do know that a few years ago there was a widespread story in this country that an American bishop had been leading some refugees toward the Honduran border and they were attacked by the Contras and by this time he was back in this country and I phoned him and he said, no, I was leading this group of refugees to escape Nicaragua and get into Honduras and he said we were attacked by the Sandinista army and he said the Contras came to our rescue. Mary? Mr. President, politics, sir. Could you tell us what you think of Mario Cuomo and the other things you would like to ever be president? And secondly, would you assess for us your own personal opinion of how your friend, Paul Lachzold, would do in Republican presidential primaries? Oh, Mary, you've thrown a nasty curve there with regard to Governor Cuomo. I've often thought that remembering my own days at governor's conferences when I was a governor that if he had been a governor then or I was a governor now, we'd be on opposite sides. And with regard to Paul Lachzold, I meant everything I said about him the other night at that dinner in his honor. He is a gentleman. He was a fine governor. He has the utmost of integrity and I am very proud and pleased to call him friend. All right, David? Mr. President, 50 senators have sent you a letter including, I believe, about two-thirds of the Republican senators saying that they think that action on your tax bill in the Senate should be held up until you enter into negotiations with the members of Congress and reach a definitive agreement on a budget for next year. What is your reaction? Well, I've already agreed on the budget. It's just up to Congress now to join me in that. We've submitted a budget. But I know about that letter and I understand their right to do it. But I happen to believe that every cook stove has two front burners and there's no reason why the United States Senate or the United States Congress can't be cooking on both burners. The tax reform program has nothing to do with what it has things to do with but there's no way interferes with continuing to make progress on the budget and the fight against the deficit and so forth. And I just don't see why we should leave the cold while we just cook on the one burner. These are two tracks and they should go forward together. Okay, Bob. Mr. President, at your last press conference you declined to comment on the treatment of Dr. Sakharov. Since then two things have happened. A letter has been smuggled out by Dr. Sakharov detailing his treatment and at the party congress in Moscow Mr. Gorbachev attacked you and foreign policy. Are you ready now to say anything about there? How do you feel the Soviets are treating Dr. Sakharov? Bob, I think, and this is kind of difficult because of the policy that I've been following and that has had some measure of success with them. In politics, if you back somebody publicly into a corner and you make it impossible for them to give in the eyes of their supporters, their constituency, their people, they look like they're taking orders from a foreign government. And therefore, I can assure you that the general secretary of the Soviet Union knows exactly what I think of the way they're treating not only Dr. Sakharov but all the others that they have there in captivity. And I think if we're going to have success and we have had some little measure of success now since the, at least a sizable gesture since the Geneva summit, I think I would rather leave it that I'm going to deal directly with them on how I feel and the less that I say about it publicly the better chance we have of helping those people. Andy, you're next, but let me just... I've been looking for questions so hard I may have missed an answer along the way but have you really been asked about the summit, the prospect of a summit in June and are we going to get one at all? We've heard no word. There was only a kind of an informal suggestion that maybe September would be better and that came from one individual in their governmental structure. It was never made as a formal proposal. We're still sticking to the early summer because of our own election. We've explained this to them, that this would be kind of complicated and heavy duty for us to try and combine the two things. We have not had a formal answer one way or the other. Would this slip through our fingers? If it does slip through our fingers, I've got news for them. There won't be an 87 summit in Moscow. Yes, sir. All right, Andy, sorry. But since you asked my question... I didn't know. I stepped on your line. How did I know? Mr. President, perhaps this might be an opportunity to move away from the daily headlines and ask you this. You have 35 months to go in your term. Quite aside from our agenda, what would you like to accomplish in that time? What are your main goals? Beyond the track that will lead... I know that we cannot balance the budget prior to my getting out, but beyond that track, the one that is adopted in Graham Redmond Hollings to come to a balanced budget, to have the balanced budget amendment so that from there on this government will begin to act sensibly with regard to its spending policies, to have underway actually being implemented the reductions in nuclear weapons that we have been proposing and trying to get for so long. All of those things, I think, and to finally kind of tie up the loose ends of federalism to where we have done what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said he was going to do clear back in 1932, and that was restore to states and local communities the autonomy and authority that had been unjustly seized by the federal government. Mary Leonard had been waiting a long while, so was Finley and Fred Barnes and Lou and then Mark Shields, and who knows? What do you say? Eastland? Mr. President, do you agree with Secretary Rogers in his assessment that the NASA decision-making process was flawed? What do you think the future is of the NASA program? Now, what revisions do you think may have to be made in light of what's coming out from the revelations of last week? Well, apparently, and I'm going to wait until I do get the final report from him, but apparently there were ways, whether it was intentional or not, there were ways in which counsel and advice on regard to the safety factor could be ignored and the launch took place with the tragic follow-up, and therefore there must be, we first established what actually caused the crash, although that's becoming seeming to become more evident every day, but then we make sure that there can be no such follow-up in the future. Now, I don't know whether there was any intent or whether anyone knowingly just gambled and took a chance, or whether it was just error and judgment, but that's what we're going to find out with this report, and as I say, I am determined to keep the pledge I made to the families of those who died. Every one of them said to me, went out of their way to say to me, this program must continue, and I believe it has proven itself so many times in the spin-offs that have come from those things, the knowledge that we have gained, that I want to see it go forward, but I want to see it go forward in which this sort of thing can never happen again. Finley, Fred, Lou, and then Mark. Mr. President, going back to David Rotter's question about the letter that was sent to you, the answers seem to rule out pretty definitively any participation by the White House in any kind of conference aimed at working out problems that are otherwise unsolvable through the political process. Is that, in fact, your position, are there no conditions under which you would agree to put on the table those items that seem to stand in the way of an agreement, of a grand compromise so-called? No, I'm going to meet with everybody and anybody and consult with them, not only the people that are supportive of our positions, but those opposed and try to work these things out. But some of the things that have been suggested as a compromise are things that I think would be a total repudiation of what our position should be, such as with regard to tax increases. There's just no way, because the greatest means of bringing about sensible financial policy is going to come through growth in the economy. And I cannot be convinced that a tax increase does not run the risk of putting us back into that cycle we've been on ever since World War II. Nine recessions, one right after the other. And suddenly we've had 39 months, the longest period of recovery in all this time. And what seems to be a solid recovery, but the most significant thing is the government is getting more revenues at the lower tax rates than it was getting at the higher tax rates. I think I heard you say that the tax increase is non-negotiable. Is that the percent and limit of your listed non-negotiable items? There are other things. What needs to be worked out and negotiated are the various programs where there is opposition to what they call or some of our cuts, and let them find out how we see the program running at the lower figure and that the cuts would not necessarily come from taking the food out of the mouths of anyone in a program. They might come from just straightening up some of the administrative overhead. We have been conducting, and it's been very quiet, and not many of you have paid much attention to it. We've been conducting a program of management reform in government, and the results are astounding. We've simply been trying to put the federal government on the same basis that a business would be on with regard to just management and doing away with the carelessness and the spending that is needless. Such things as having the administrative functions of a program or a department or agency instead of every one of them having its own administrative section, you find out that no, you can have an administrative section that services a dozen such programs. This is the sequence now. Fred, Lou, Mark, George, and Lars. I'm doing the best I can here. I'm mopping up. Most of them are right in the center. Go ahead. Mr. President, a line for a judgment on you, one that's been particularly reinforced in the way that the success of your policy in the Philippines is that you are an extraordinarily Latin political leader. To what extent do you think luck plays a role in politics, and particularly in your administration and the success of your administration? I wish I could think of some of the wise statements that have been made by many people in the past about what luck really is. If I were really lucky, I wouldn't have this job. You really mean it? I'm safe to play cards with, honestly. Lou? Do you have a game plan for 1988? Does it include sometime throwing your support along the way to one of the Republican candidates, or will you wait right down to the time of the ballot at the convention before you make known your feeling about the various candidates? This is the second time I've had this problem because I had it once before as a governor. You're the titular head of the party, and I don't see how, without being coming divisive and hurting the very thing you want to help, that as the titular head, you can involve yourself in a primary. So I feel that I'm going to have to bide my time, but then, whoever is our party's nominee, I'm going to do everything I can to get them elected. Mark, you got a one-liner? Mr. President, after the death of the president for whom you four times voted, a group of petty vindictive men who could not defeat Franklin Roosevelt in life sought to get even with him in death by passing the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting presidents to two terms. Thus, you, and it's known by everybody in politics, can never run again. The race has already started. It started last September in Michigan, this past weekend in Tennessee. Full-fledged campaigns are going about, what do you feel right now about the 22nd Amendment, and do you see any circumstances under which you would advocate its repeal? Yes. But let's make one thing plain. I would not be talking about myself. No one could ever take on that problem while in office and without ruling it out, or ruling that any change would have to be implemented then for the next person that holds the office. So that is my feeling. But since I've been here, and I must say it has been a change, I accepted that. You know, I grew up so much of this country with that tradition that Washington set. Now, if you look back, he set the tradition about two terms because at that time, everyone was very conscious that we must not become like a kingdom. We must not begin to have inherited positions and so forth. Then Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved that the people could vote for someone they wanted, and you're right, I think that this is what prompted the 22nd Amendment. But since I've been here, I've come to feel, and not for myself, but this is an infringement on the people's democratic rights. We have congressmen and senators who served up to 40 years or elected time after time. Why do we say to the people of this country that they cannot choose who they want for as long as they want them in this particular office? There are plenty of safeguards against the power of the presidency that he could not become a lifetime monarch or anything. But I think that the people, if we're really truly a democracy, should have the right to vote for whoever they want to do for as long as they want it. George, I'm sorry to hold you so long. The agricultural department has now begun the process that could lead to the foreclosure of many thousands of farms. Do you feel comfortable presiding over a government that could take over maybe tens of thousands of family farms? And what would you do with that land? This terrible problem with the farmers, let me communicate with to see if we can find any answer they haven't thought of that will enable them to clear the decks. But they are, as I say, they're people who have apparently exhausted all that is there. Yes, it's tragic. I think this whole matter is. But on the other hand, is this any different than any other business that tries, comes to the end of the road and finds that it can't make it and goes out of business. We are going to do everything we can if there is some avenue still open that can help these individuals. But they are only a small percentage, each one a tragic case, and you have to bleed for them. But they're only a tiny percentage of the 2.5 million farms that we have in the country. Near the end, Lars, and then Orteban. Mr. President, about five years ago, in Canada, there was a truck that showed the Soviet Union to be ahead of us in planes and tanks and boats. And after five years of a build-up, we just pulled up the same chart and the Russians are still ahead of us in planes and tanks and boats. We've spent a trillion dollars. They're supposed to be a bureaucratically stifled, stagnating society that can't grow. How do you explain the fact that they can keep up with us and maintain that gap despite all of our efforts? Well, militarily, not just numbers of weapons, we have closed the gap considerably in these five years. And we've been doing something that the previous president, in his last year in office, when he had to make his five-year projection, he recognized this and projected spending that is even greater than we have ended up spending. The Soviet Union has been on this military build-up for years and years before we started this trying to catch up. And as a matter of fact, in many of those weapons, they're superior to not only us, but to us plus our NATO allies. It is necessary for us to actually have the same number of weapons they do. We think of our military as a deterrent, and as a deterrent force, this means that you're capable of making it so difficult, even with the enemy's superior numbers, that they're going to think several times before they launch an attack. And we're closer to that deterrent thing than we have been before. Some of this, however, comes in not matching them in the number of tanks, but having superior, I said before, anti-tank weapons. And we have a global plan, a military program. It is going forward, and we're not going to try to match them tank for tank or artillery gun for artillery gun. We're not going to try to match them that way. Why should we hold up these charts that show the gaps and say that there are a lot of us in numbers of tanks? Because a poll revealed that an overwhelming majority of people, having listened to the drumbeat of propaganda against the defense buildup, actually now believes that we are superior in numbers to the Soviet Union. And if the American people believe that once again, Mr. Jefferson was right, it's up to us to give them the facts. We're so close to the end, Dan. I want to get to Charlotte. Can we do this, Larry? Two more? Yes. They're quick, all right. Very quickly. Mr. President, does your objection to a tax increase, here I am, to bounce a budget, extend oil import levy, and would you veto that, should it be passed for the Congress? Let me say that this was one of the things that was talked, not as a tax increase for balancing the budget. This was talked at one time as a part of the tax reform in order to keep it revenue neutral and bringing in the same revenue without an increase, but it would be simply turning to something like that in lieu of some income tax. And it was considered. I have to say that having looked at it and studied it from all this time in case it should become one of the factors, I have to say that I'm opposed. I think it would have a bad effect on our economy. Mr. President, the Geneva arms talks ended without any apparent progress towards an agreement. Why is that? And why is Mr. Glowbuchar now criticizing the United States for a lack of progress? When are we going to get down to negotiating seriously behind closed doors? We did get down to it, and we were the only ones playing. I've had 25 years' experience as a negotiator. Somebody comes forth with an offer and you come forth with a counter-proposal, and sometimes it meets part of theirs or all of it or whatever. We came back as early as last November with a proposal on what we call START, and these are the strategic weapons and all, and we made a proposal that actually accepted much of what Gorbachev had said, but then got down to the details. It's very complicated. You've got a whole mix of those nuclear weapons on each side, and each side places a different reliance on some or the others. So when you just talk warheads, you say, well, now how are we going to work this out? Which weapons are we talking about? And we came up with a proposal that recognized his 50% reduction and the ultimate elimination, and there was never a response. They just sit there with the first proposal and never open their mouths again. The same thing is true. We made every effort, since they had encouraged us by suggesting that maybe where we could start and really get a quick solution would be on the medium-range weapons in Europe where we have the Pershings and the cruise missiles against their SS-20s. And we think that there was a flaw in their proposal. It was that, yes, they would remove them all from Europe, but then they would leave them masked on the Asian front where we also have allies and friends. And we proposed, let's get rid of all of them, because those missiles that are SS-20s are mobile. This means that in less than 12 hours they could have them back aimed at Europe, but also some of them, based on that Asian front, there are European targets that are within range of them without them even moving. So we would be withdrawing all of our medium-range weapons, and they would still be left with this over here, and we've got some friends and allies, South Korean, Japan, and so forth, over on that front, and again they would be left with an advantage. And so we have made a counter-proposal that let's at least get rid of the medium-range weapons all of them. And since it's an offensive weapon on their side, we thought that they ought to be willing to agree with us, but they haven't. We tried to negotiate. Larry's cutting me off. I'm going to have to cut you, Charlotte. We're past the hour a little bit. Mr. President, you know, reporters, you know us, we don't always say the thing you would expect, but it's a moment I think I'm speaking, I think for the whole group, certainly for myself, it is so gracious of you to have us over here. You've had us over here several times. Thank you so very much. Thank you, and I'm glad that you now understand how I feel after every press conference with all those hands still waving, and I can't take them out. Get that sweatshirt. I'll pass it around.